I agree with many of Jerry Bledsoe's criticisms of N&R articles about November 3, 1979, including the importance of the previous confrontation at China Grove, the responsibility of the CWP for the location and nature of its rally, and the motives and success of the CWP's union organizing mission. I've said so in print, and the TRC report supports these arguments.

But for Jerry's long and detailed article dealing largely with the police, the march, the contested nature of the relationship between police and CWP, and omissions in media coverage to omit any mention of the police informant riding with the Klan that day, and to  gloss over the lack of police presence at the site of the deadly shootings...well, it's a bit odd, don't you think?

UPDATE: Bledsoe did mention in the previous installment of the series that CID officer Rooster Cooper "had an informant in the Klan, Eddie Dawson, who led Klan members to Morningside Homes."

Also, the October 31,1999 article he cites by Ahearn was accompanied by a sidebar and a map, which between them contain much of the information discussed:

FAST-FORWARD COUNTDOWN TO AN 88-SECORD DISASTER...AND A SLOW, 20-YEAR - RECKONING FOR GREENSBORO

Date: October 31, 1999   Page: A6

MILITANT COMMUNISTS ON THE LEFT

In the late 1970s, a group of hard-core Marxists...is agitating for its vision of social and economic change in Greensboro.

...In 1979, the established textile union decertifies and seizes control of locals organized by Communists. Their labor efforts thus stymied, the leftists seek confrontations with the most sensational symbol of racial division between the black and white working class: the Ku Klux Klan...

...(PHOTO) The Associated Press - Forsyth Nazi leader Wayne Wood strikes a kung-fu pose during a confrontation with leftists in China Grove on July 8, 1979. Police prevent violence, and as leftists walk away with clenched fists, white supremacists vow revenge.

...(PHOTO) A CWP flier for the Nov. 3 march likewise uses provocative rhetoric to taunt the Klan. A flier, posted in black neighborhoods, asks residents along the parade route to stand on their porches with shotguns to defend the march.

RED FLAGS As the march draws near, local and federal investigators have several indications of potential violence...Dawson tells Cooper the Nazi-Klan contingent has guns. Cooper and a police photographer, in plain clothes and an unmarked car, tail the Nazi-Klan caravan all morning and are still following as the cars arrive at Morningside.

...STICKS AND STONES: WORDS TURN DEADLY The demonstrators, despite their violent words, are not heavily armed as they assemble the morning of Nov. 3. One shotgun is placed in a truck but never fired by the Communists. Four others carry low-caliber handguns, including a derringer and another gun that jams.

Comments

[sean coon]

just a tad bit.

[John D. Young]

Nov. 3rd remains a story that is always told with sympathy for one of the sides depending on your politics, ideology, background, life experiences, etc. It's a good reminder of the need to read several different historical accounts of an event to have a chance for any real understanding. It shows us how facts can still be raw and in dispute from an event 28 years ago. I do appreciate Bledsoe and any and all others participating in the dialogue about Nov. 3rd because all the versions of Nov. 3rd help to better frame that event.

I think I remember this quote by an Eastern mystic (let me just call her the Nov. 3rd guru) that goes something like this -- "If you know you know you do not know. If you know you do not know you may be on the path of knowing."

I still like gathering information about Nov. 3rd from a huge cafeteria of sources that includes the hard efforts of the T&R Commission as well as another 50+ sources.

This "Truth" process in Greensboro has reminded me to be skeptical of most of the history I have been taught. Or maybe we should just depend on understanding our history from perhaps the better angle of Melville, Emerson, Dickinson, Faulkner, Hughes, Agee, Baldwin, Morrison, etc., etc.

[Joe Guarino]

My recollection is that Bledsoe had mentioned in the series, I believe twice, what Wray believed about that date. Wray apparently felt that internal communication had failed within the Police Department with respect to the preparations for that day.

[sean coon]

joe, ed's talking about bledsoe glossing over facts in his article, not what wray believed. put down the team wray pom-poms and read it again.

[Joe Guarino]

Sean, you really need to resist the temptation to take personal shots. This story is about some issues much bigger than Wray.

Bledsoe's reporting of what Wray believed about the police department's response twice, without contesting it, hardly constitutes glossing over what the police department's share of the blame might have been.

[sean coon]

joe, you'll know personal when it's personal. that was a dig.

article #20 goes into excruciating detail about lorraine ahearn and her "beliefs," practically positioning her as a communist sympathizer in order to frame her contributions to the wray fray in a particular light.

bleadsoe counters her reporting of 11/3/79 with his own factual assertions, but as ed pointed out, he smoothly leaves the facts of the gpd non-response out of that conversation, which to me, lessens his credibility in establishing motive for ahearn.

how's that for bigger than wray?

[sean coon]

a nd don't try to tell me that the informant (ed dawson) telling the cops (jerry cooper) the day before the march that "bucket of blood" would be spilt is just some oversight or non-important inclusion of the facts. i mean, even bledsoe's chief citation in the article, elizabeth wheaton, made that quote as clear as day in her book.

if bledsoe is going to drag 11/3 into the wray fray, he damn well better represent all the facts.

[Ed Cone]

JDY, the facts left out of Jerry's version aren't "in dispute," they were just omitted from a piece of journalism that purports to correct the facts presented in other journalistic accounts.

Welcoming multiple versions of the story without applying some objective standards of accuracy to each version is pretty meaningless.

If we are to gain some real meaning from these multiple versions -- beyond the tendency to spin one way or another by the tellers -- then the standards we bring to the tales have to be more rigorous than you suggest.

[Mick]

Ive read many accounts, watched the City Confidential episode, kept up with the N&R's news and editorial coverage (historical and current), The Rhino stuff, etc.

I cant get away from feeling both sides received the confrontation they wanted.

As for "glossing over" ... my memory and research indicates that on numerous occasions N&R contributors have buried and even completely left out the FACT that the CWP folks had guns and fired nearly as many shots.

There are no heroes or martyrs here. It was a senseless, ugly, disguting incident and no amount of T&R can change the events of that day.

[Bubba]

"It was a senseless, ugly, disguting incident and no amount of T&R can change the events of that day."

That's the best summation I've read yet.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, I agree. The CWP group as well as the Klan were both looking for a confrontation, and they both got it. As Bledsoe points out, the goals of the CWP group were nefarious, and the history of the Klan is well known. All the local, prolonged hand-wringing is an attempt to assign most of the public blame to the GPD, in accordance with Nelson Johnson's wishes, and to extract this concession from the city; but this is not justified. It is remarkable, however, that Wray seemed to be willing to assign some error of omission (or commission?) to the GPD.

[Ed Cone]

I don't think it's remarkable at all, Joe, that Wray was willing to assign some error to the GPD, because obviously the GPD erred that day.

The cops weren't there when they were needed. The City paid a financial judgment for the errors.

You misstate the case by saying "all" of the local concern involves assigning "most of the public blame to the GPD."

My concern is that some reasonable amount of the blame be acknowledged.

The TRC report acknowledges the responsibility of the CWP, and the Klan, and the GPD. I don't agree with its ratios, but it's contrafactual to ignore the failings of the GPD that day.

[Joe Guarino]

How does one arrive at an objective, verifiable, quantifiable way of assigning proportionate blame? It can't be done, because Nelson Johnson's number is probably different than your number, which is different than mine, which is different than...

And as I have pointed out on your blog previously, an official acknowledgement of blame might entail certain liabilities that the city would be unwise to assume-- because the tort system would then be involved in quantifying the proportionate blame.

[Ed Cone]

I'm not looking for a mathematical blame-apportioning formula, Joe. People have no problem dividing the blame roughly between the two groups most responsible for the events of that day, adding the failings of the third shouldn't be such a challenge.

[sean coon]

joe, as ed pointed out, these are *facts* -- not some type of grenade in a culture war. if you want to pretend the facts aren't the facts, that only speaks to your credibility.

the cwp stoked the fires of the kkk and mouthed off to the cops.
the kkk came looking to kill and told the cops as much days prior.
the police didn't show up at all to protect and serve greensboro's citizen.

nelson and company apologized for their role, numerous klan members are on record apologizing, but the city dances around this topic like it's a bonfire.

if i didn't know any better, i'd suggest you were a marketing arm for city management. but that can't be your angle, now can it?

[Joe Guarino]

Sean, the fact is that the CWP was a horrible organization that set off the whole thing, the Klan was another horrible organization that took its bait, and Johnson was a part of the whole thing. What is occurring with this civic dialogue is analogous to blaming the fire department after a case of arson burned a building down. The fire department's getting there too late did not cause the building to burn down. The arson did. Had the fire department gotten there quickly, perhaps the damage could have been mitigated, but that does not make the act of arson one bit less serious, or one bit less the most proximate cause.

I am hardly marketing the city's position. It would be foolhardy for the city to accept blame, with any attendant legal implications, under such circumstances.

[Ed Cone]

Joe, your analogy would be truer if the fire dept had been monitoring two rival groups of arsonists, and had an informant/instigator in one group who rode with them to the scene of a fire that killed several people while the fire dept didn't show.

There is no disconnect between understanding the badness and the culpability of the CWP and the Klan, and also understanding the failings of the GPD.

[sean coon]

ok joe, now i'm going to get personal.

you're an idiot.

stop with analogies to the fire department. how do you square a police informant reporting to the gpd about the upcoming violence in your analogy?

you can't.

how do you square the fact that the city provided the marchers a permit and, by law, were to have staffed the route with officers, but all 26 assigned officers somehow failed to show?

you can't.

all you can do is obfuscate the facts of the day.

i know you're not an idiot, but you're doing your best to prove me wrong.

[Ed Cone]

15 yards, unnecessary roughness. Right when Joe was pinned on the goal line, too.

[sean coon]

i have faith in my defense to overcome.

[Roch101]

Joe is a remarkably cool debater and the local right's most thoughtful blogger. He deserves some respect, even when he stumbles in his rezoning. His fire department analogy would only apply if it included the firefighters' absence despite a prior warning that an act of arson would occur at a specific date and time.

[anon]

Joe's analogy would only work under the following conditions:
1. if that arsonist were paid by the fire department and had reported to the department days in advance that he was going to burn down a building
2. if that building were located in a predominantly black and poor neighborhood
3. if the fire department had specifically promised to devote resources to keeping the building and its occupants safe and had, as part of that agreement, required that the smoke detectors be removed from the building,
4. if the fire department had followed the arsonist to the building and knew that the arsonist had arson-tools stashed in the trunk,
5. and if the fire department had been absolutely clear about its disdain, or downright hatred, of that building that got burned down.

Furthermore, the analogy would only work in the aftermath if the fire department covered up its prior knowledge of the arsonist's plans or even of any acquaintance with the arsonist it had paid for his time planning to burn down the building.

[Roch101]

Rezoning? Damn spellchecker. "Reasoning."

[sean coon]

this isn't a debate; it's a conversation. and sometimes conversations get heated. if it were joe's reasoning i had issue with, i wouldn't be so blunt. but this type of obfuscation deserves no respect. in my book at least.

[sean coon]

anon is on the money.

[Joe Guarino]

Ed, it is one thing to understand cognitively what MAY have happened. It is quite another to accept publicly the liability for what happened-- especially when the City (and its taxpayers) is the party with the deep pockets. Perhaps the whole thing would feel a whole lot better if Johnson and any surviving CWP buddies and the Klan survivors would accept all the financial liability associated with the incident, and take the city off the hook from that standpoint.

Sean, sorry, but I can't continue the conversation with you under the circumstances.

[sean coon]

i completely understand, joe. go back to your fantasy world.

[Ed Cone]

Joe, I think the liability issue remains one of the vexing problems for the City, and one that has to be handled carefully.

That said, you and I don't work for the City, and neither do most people.

There's nothing stopping us from coming to some commonsense agreement about what happened, and why.

There is room within any such agreement for differences on emphasis and proportionality, but there is no factual version that lets the GPD completely off the hook.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Sean Coon's deep logic wins again.

[anon]

Joe said:
Perhaps the whole thing would feel a whole lot better if Johnson and any surviving CWP buddies and the Klan survivors would accept all the financial liability associated with the incident, and take the city off the hook from that standpoint.

I'm not sure what this means. The city and its taxpayers have already accepted financial responsibility for the incident by paying the damages of more than $350,000 to one of the CWP widows.

[John D. Young]

Ed, my point earlier (way above) is how one assigns the level of responsibility to the different groups on Nov. 3rd remains framed by our different ideologies. In most every version the ideology comes through fairly quickly. So far we as a community have not moved away from our designated corners about Nov. 3rd so we can fully understand that day.

The TRC helped bring greater clarity within the body of their report and with the diverse statements given during the process but the Commission's conclusions still show that it is hard to tell this story without "sympathy for one side." Maybe that is one of the lessons of this process.

I agree that properly describing the faults and mistakes of everyone that day is essential and possible but we still need multiple resources, new resources and even some clearly one sided resources to help bring clarity to this story.

I think, even at this stage in the process, we need some space for information, facts, opinions about Nov. 3rd that allows people to comfortably speak without the fear of being verbally attacked by one of the factions. This "comfortable space" was one of the true strengths of the TRC that provided a format for different voices. (Such a "comfortable space" was not sufficiently provided by the GTCRP.) A great deal of insight and facts about Nov. 3rd still exists within the broader community and like the approach of the TRC those different stories still need to be heard and honored. A rich group of facts still exists among some former residents of Morningside Homes as well as with some pastors who directly dealt with the immediate horror facing their church and community members on Nov. 3rd. We can still be creative and possibly get senior police officers to at some point participate in the flow of information. I hope these stories gets a much fuller telling at some point.

At one time Mayor Holiday was not closed to any discussion about Nov. 3rd. The City Council should come out from its corner. At one time, I think the mayor suggested a better course for Greensboro would be an "academic panel of historians" to help bring clarity around the issue of Nov. 3rd. I had a vision of the colleges and universities in Greensboro taking the T&R Report and processing it, critically analyzing it, and using it as a springboard for further research and understanding. This university engagement could provide "a comfortable space" to allow former Morningside residents and others to speak and create a format that again tries to reach out to the folks of Morningside who have largely remained silent.

Now that a lot of hard and good work has been started by the TRC it seems that we can find some creative ways to continue to improve our community understanding of Nov. 3rd and come out of our designated corners.

Eventually YES Weekly, Carolina Peacemaker, the Rhino and the N&R could organize an interesting group of community discussions around the T&R Report and facts and opinions concerning Nov. 3rd that could become the beginning of a much broader community engagement that might allow an opportunity for us to speak from our different corners and create an opportunity for some community reconciliation.

[Cara Michele]

Joe, are you really advocating that someone not apologize for a wrong because there may be consequences for them owning up to the action they're apologizing for? I don't hear you saying, "The City shouldn't apologize because they weren't wrong." I hear you saying, "The City shouldn't apologize because it might cost us all something." [Find that logic in the Bible, huh? Actually, I believe that it says, "You reap what you sow," and it also says, "Confess your sins..."]

With all due respect, Joe: What? If you don't think the City should apologize, it should be because you don't think the City has anything to apologize for.

[John D. Young]

Joe, there is an existing agreement between the city and the survivors when that insurance money was paid. Does anyone have the exact details of that existing agreement? Jill?

I think at that time an agreement was signed for no future claims against the city and the city paid the insurance funds and accepted no legal responsibility for Nov. 3rd.

[Joe Guarino]

Mr. Young, the point you have just made is critical. If that type of agreement exists, a determination would need to be made as to whether it covers all bases, and whether it remains rock solid and enforceable today. We would need to know if that agreement goes out the window if the city makes an official acknowledgement of responsibility (and thereby, liability) today.

It seems this is a critical issue about which we would need to be certain. We need to know. But if there is no issue with respect to the city incurring liability, I would have no problem with an apology.

Michele, the Bible speaks a lot about justice. And it would be hardly just if current city taxpayers, many of whom did not even live here during 1979 (and some of whom were not even alive then) would be forced to incur the brunt of the financial damages, and the primarily responsible KKK and CWP members do not. But that is a very plausible potential outcome, because it is the city that has the deep pockets that would be the most ripe target for litigation. That would hardly be a just outcome. The reality of staring down the barrel of our torts system has to be considered.

[Ed Cone]

"I would have no problem with an apology."

So...you don't really doubt that the police bear some responsibility for what happened, you've just been arguing to the contrary because of the possible financial cost to the City?

[Joe Guarino]

Ed, I believe that the responsibility of the KKK and CWP members was primary (by leaps and bounds); and that it is possible that the police department may have been secondarily responsible. And I think city taxpayers' assuming the vast preponderance of any financial liability, to the exclusion of CWP members like Johnson, and the KKK members, would be a profoundly unjust outcome; and this needs to be strenuously avoided.

[Ed Cone]

Fair enough, Joe. I agree that the primary responsibility falls on the KKK and CWP, although (as mentioned earlier) we may disagree on the share of blame apportioned to each group involved, including GPD; I also agree that the City has paid its financial debt (barring the emergence of some further and conclusive evidence of responsibility).

Thanks for the conversation.

[John D. Young]

From page 307 of the T&R Report, quote:

"The settlement agreement (before money was paid in Nov. 1985) states very clearly that the city is not accepting responsibility for wrongdoing. It further contains no apology for its actions or that of its agents. The settlement states that it should not be construed by plaintiffs as conferring any liability on the city for any aspect of the events of Nov. 3, 1979.

The settlement agreement itself acknowledged, in part, why the parties chose to conclude the case. It stated that both sides agree that a settlement was warranted "because of the time and expense necessary for the further prosecution and defense of post-trial motions and appeals in the light of the entire verdict." Further, the City of Greensboro noted that its insurance carrier was willing to settle this case in order to bring conclusion. The police chief at the time emphasized that neither party would want to be tied up in litigation for another two years and that it was in the best interests of the community as a whole to conclude the litigation "once and for all."

.... Nonetheless, a central part of the agreement was the waving of all future legal actions against each other. The plaintiffs released all the city defendants, the City of Greensboro, the GPD and all former or present employees of the city or GPD, from any past or future liability for any type of suit, alleging any type of action or inaction, arising for the Nov. 3, 1979, incident. The waiver provisions were intended to be broad prohibitions against future legal action. The agreement expressly stated that both sides would not pursue their pending motions, nor would they pursue any appeal. The plaintiffs also agreed not to pursue their pending lawsuit against Cap. Talbott. In addition, they would not seek to recover attorney's fees or costs from the opposing party. Finally, both parties, of course, had to acknowledge their capacity to freely enter such an agreement. In particular, the plaintiffs had to acknowledge that their injuries might take an uncertain course, but no matter what, they would not seek compensation in the future."

(Most of this part of the Report refers in footnotes to "Agreement and Release, accompanying Order, Waller et. al. vs. Butkovich et. al. Nov. 5, 1985.")

[jones]

It's amazing how actual facts can shed light into the darkness of ignorance. Those who have sought to portray the TRC as a "money grab" now look extremely foolish, indeed.

Why spout off about something when all you know about it is what you've been told? Helps no one, hurts us all.

Will any of you be apologizing to Nelson Johnson for your unfair suppositions as to his motives?

[Joe Guarino]

John, Jones, do you have any information about the financial liability that the CWP members or the Klan members incurred? And if they did not incur any liability, would that have been a just outcome?

Also, do we have any information about how viable that agreement would be if, all of a sudden, the city were to accept responsibility-- which it apparently did not do previously?

[John D. Young]

Joe, first my memory and then the long quote from the report is my only information. I hope it proves helpful. But as to a current legal interpretation I have no knowledge about that.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I've been following this thread all day, but the name-calling kept me out. Two questions.

The release of liability applies ONLY to those "survivors" who filed suit, not ALL of of the residents of Morningside, yes?

If the City of GSO offered a blanket apology to the residents of Morningside, without a WHOLE LOT OF RELEASES being signed, wouldn't that open up a whole nuther legal can of worms?

[Joe Guarino]

John, it was helpful, and I appreciate it. I had not recalled that portion of the report from when I skimmed it months ago. If the city does not face any potential new liability, that makes a big difference. It would be good to have a solid, incontrovertible legal opinion on the questions Mary and I raise.

[bill o'neil]

I don't know what's more amazing about this story... the fact that after more than 25-years it still produces heated debate... or that most people still don't know the facts of what happened.

[John D. Young]

A simple proposal for Greensboro's bloggers and beyond:

Maybe the City Council will decide to stay in its corner. But I could see David Hoggard and a bunch of famous charcoal chiefs along with a lot of us folks, chipping in for the expense, get together with a few churches who are connected with some of these former Morningside residents and have a barbeque (no Smithfield pork please) at some convenient location and reach out a hand to say to these fine folks -- we as citizens of Greensboro are sorry for what happened in you backyard in 1979. Let's simply sit down with some of these former Morningside folks, their family and friends and reach out our hands in friendship and honor them.

We could replace all of our harsh divisions and our self-righteous politics with the magic of barbeque, good music, ice tea or something a little stronger along with some heart felt conversations.

This could at least be a real step forward towards some type of community healing. Anybody have a Saturday open in May? I'll bring the mustard!

[sean coon]

i think that's a great idea, john. if you need any help setting something like that up, please contact me.

seriously.

[John D. Young]

Thanks Sean! So far I have heard from you and Joe. We will see if my suggestion has any legs among the blog community. But I plan to pursue this through several avenues to see if there is interest. Somehow it is hard to sit around and wait on "Official Greensboro" when we just the plain, average citizens may be the "Real Greensboro."

Anyway this may prove to be at least a small step in the right direction.